Post your comment

Reader comments

The article isn’t clear. The California Supreme Court is still considering Project H8’s (or whatever the group’s name is) petition. All they have done is to refuse to stop marriage licences being granted whilst they consider the petition.

I think this is a good sign but there is still a way to go until this is resolved.

The decision may have been unanimous not to stop same sex marriages for the moment but they haven’t dismissed the petition. They are deliberating it and have called for submissions. They expect to reach a decision by some time in August.

They aren’t actually asking the court to overrule Walker. Their argument is that according to the California State Constitution, a federal judge’s verdict can only be applied once it’s confirmed by an appellate court. Since the appeal court’s decision supporting Walker’s decision was vacated and therefore never happened, they are arguing that stopping the enforcement of Proposition 8 goes against California State Law.

They are also arguing that even if that isn’t the case, Walker’s decision only applies to either the parties named in the law suit or the counties in which they live and not actually statewide.

So the Supreme Court of California is still considering the petition and could still call a halt to SSM in the future.

Really?
I’m not writing a blog.
I don’t have the luxury of time to dissect every word I write when commenting on a blog post.

If you think that my question mark is a more egregious error than the dreadful grammar in the article in question, then you prove without a doubt that you have absolutely no right whatsoever to be correcting anyone else’s grammar.

I’m with Mikey, too. PN has the greater responsibilty. ‘resume’ used this way is as illiterate as that other spurious gem ‘invite’ instead of ‘invitation’, and my own personal pet hate; ‘impact’ used as a transitive verb and even then without its preposition!

I’m with Mikey on this point. A casual forum post is generally considered a far more casual communication than a posted article.

For the sake of argument, even your short sentence could be picked apart. You’ve used a non-restrictive clause at the end which should be preceded by a comma and used “that” instead of “which”.

I would also tend to disagree with your quibble over the question mark; the clause which contains the question is separated from the reported speech portion by a comma.

None of this really matters to me if I can understand you, since the aim here is casual communication and doesn’t – in my view – need to be subject to the same scrutiny as an article, as Mikey has already pointed out.

As a free service I’m not inclined to overly scrutinise the quality of the grammar of PN articles, however it may be considered a sign that less care has been invested, which in turn may in turn raise questions about the overall factual accuracy of a piece.

Your articles are a hugely valuable source of information which I for one thoroughly enjoy reading but occasionally are spoilt by sloppy headlines which discourage the reader from actually going on to read the article in question!.